134

THE JORDAN CROSSED BY JACOB

κατ' ἐξοχήν: but it is quite certain that in the earlier ages of the Israelitish commonwealth that term was applicable to the Jordan of Jericho alone. This latter river is formed of two principal streams. The first has its rise in the mountains of Antilibanus, and running southward through the Lake of Gennesareth, unites, shortly after its exit from that lake, with the other stream, which has its principal source in the Djebel Haouran, about 70 miles to the eastward. It is this latter branch, which is now known by the name of Sheriat el Mandhour, and which appears to be the greater of the two streams, that I conceive to be the river which was crossed by Jacob, and to which the name of Jordan' was applied in the patriarchal ages; although at a subsequent period, when "the Jordan of Jericho" became known to the Israelites on their return out of Mitzraim, and when they had taken possession of the northern parts of the land of Canaan, (which must be considered as having been unknown, except probably by name, to their progenitors, who came from "the east country,") the name of Jordan was applied to the direct stream flowing through the Lake of Gennesareth, instead of to that flowing 1 The name of this river, (Yardén), has been fancifully considered by some as meaning "the river of Dan," or as being compounded from the names of the two streams "Jor" and "Dan." It is, however, manifest, that its true derivation is from the root (yarád), “to descend, or flow down"; whence its literal meaning is simply the flood or river, although it was used, subsequently, as a proper name.

THE MANDHOUR OF THE PRESENT DAY. 135

from the east, which had originally been crossed by Jacob'.

Regarding, then, the Mandhour as being the river which was crossed by Jacob in his flight, and of which he said, "with my staff I passed over this Jordan2, we can readily comprehend how that patriarch, having passed the river, set his face "toward the mount Gilead," which then lay only a short distance off, in a south or south-westerly direction.

It is now requisite to return to the consideration of the original settlements of Aram and his descendants. The genealogical table of the sons of Noah proceeds to say3, "And the children of Aram; Uz, "and Hul, and Gether, and Mash." This is all we are told concerning them, but by following my second principle of distribution*, I am led to place the first-named, Uz, to the eastward in Aram', and to distribute his brothers to the westward, between

3 Gen. x. 23.

4 See Page 78.

1 The two different senses in which the name Jordan was thus, at different periods, applied, may be regarded as proving that the history of Jacob must have been written previously to the return of the children of Israel from Mitzraim; thus confirming the arguments used in pages 116-121, in favour of the theory that the Book of Genesis was not the original composition of Moses. 2 Gen. xxxii. 10. 5 Josephus (Antiq. lib. I. cap. vi. sect. 4.) attributes the foundation of Damascus to Uz the son of Aram; but, as before remarked, no real importance can be attached to traditions of this nature, although they may fairly be noticed as being so perfectly in accordance with the results which have been arrived at by means independent of them.

136

DESCENDANTS OF ARAM.

his possessions and the coast of the Mediterranean Sea; thus filling up the extreme western limits of the possessions of the descendants of Shem.

There is one point of view, however, in which the country possessed by the firstnamed of the sons of Aram is deserving of particular consideration; namely, as being "the land of Uz" of the Book of Job; the history of which, as being at once highly interesting in itself, and as affording some valuable confirmations of the truth of the system delivered in this work, will form the subject of the following chapter.

CHAPTER VII.

Consideration of the Book of Job.-Reasons urged to show that Moses cannot have been its author.-Position of the land of Uz considered:-Reference to the persons of the name of Uz mentioned in Scripture :-The country of Job not that of Uz the Horite ;-The country of Uz the son of Nahor identical with that of Uz the son of Aram;-Consideration of the situations of the several countries of the sons of Nahor;-Result -That the "land of Uz" was in Padan Aram.-Conclusion that the Book of Job was written after the time of Abraham : -That it became known to Jacob during his residence in Haran; And that it was brought by him into Canaan on his return from Padan Aram :-The opinion advanced that it was originally written in the Aramitish language, and thence translated into Hebrew:-Its character as a memorial of the pure patriarchal religion, or that of the Noachic dispensation.-Concluding remarks.

THE situation of the "land of Uz," (written in the Hebrew y Hūtz,) the country of the remarkable personage who is the subject of the Book bearing his name in the Canon of Scripture, the time when that Book was composed, and its author, are points of inquiry which have received the attention of many of the most learned investigators of Biblical history and antiquities: but the results of their labours, confessedly, are unsatisfactory'.

In the work of Archbishop Magee already adverted to, On the Scriptural Doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice (vol. ii. pp. 67–

138 EXAMINATION OF DR. MASON GOOD'S OPINION

Dr. Mason Good, in the Introductory Dissertation prefixed to his Translation of the Book of Job, has greatly contributed, however, to enable us to attain certain knowledge on all these points, by advancing the opinion that the Book of Job "is the most an"cient of all human records'; the only book in ex"istence from which we can derive any thing like a systematic knowledge of pure patriarchal religion; and, hence, that very book which gives completion to the Bible, by adding the dispensa"tion of the earliest ages to those of the law and "of the gospel, by which it was successively su"perseded"."

It is surprising, however, that with general views so correct and so philosophical as those which are taken by Dr. Good with respect to every branch of his subject, and with so clear an exposition as he has presented of the internal evidence from which the date of this Book may be determined, he should -even from his own correct premises-have been led to the erroneous conclusion that Moses was its

173), the subject of the Book of Job is discussed at length, and the various opinions and authorities are cited and considered. See also Dr. Mason Good's Introductory Dissertation to his Translation of the Book of Job.

1 If the opinions advanced in the preceding Chapter, Pages 116 -121, respecting the composition of the earlier portions of the Book of Genesis be correct, the Book of Job will cease to be entitled to the character of being "the most ancient of all human "records."

2 Introd. Dissert., p. ii.